[Pce] Re: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions

["Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

"Default Behavior (TLV present, no flags set)” is P=0 and F=0. Or am I missing something? I planned to keep original statement indicating what should happen if TLV is not included at all, so list is covering only cases with TLV included.

Thanks,
Samuel

From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 11:36
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions

Hi Samuel,

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:09 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
> For “Dhruv: Yes! How about add an additional table to make it extra clear
> and readable (only a minor suggestion) “.
>
> I void like to avoid having table (especially if it is supposed to have
> all combinations to make sure that we will not end up  listing all
> combinations in the future if more flags will be added), but I can still
> try to change that section 4.2 to make it more structured, e.g. by
> converting to bullets, what about something like this:
>
> …
> The PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV defines the recomputation behavior for an LSP
> based on a default rule that can be further restricted by the P and F
> flags, as follows:
>
>    - Default Behavior (TLV present, no flags set): The PCE MUST NOT
>    recompute the path in response to various triggers if the current path
>    remains valid and meets all constraints (E.g. topology updates,
>    periodic reoptimization timers, or changes in the state of other LSPs)